Missouri lawmaker latest to propose “violent” games tax

1% excise tax would apply to games rated T and up by ESRB.

Recent mass shootings have prompted one Missouri lawmaker to propose an additional tax on "violent" games, despite those tragedies lacking a proven link to games, the failure of similar measures in other states, and the likely unconstitutionality of such a tax.

Republican State Representative Diane Franklin of rural Camdenton has introduced House Bill 157 (PDF) that would add a one percent excise tax on the sale of games rated T or above by the ESRB. That wide umbrella would include violence-free games like Guitar Hero and Ultimate Card Games that received a T rating for "suggestive lyrics" and "simulated gambling," respectively. But hey, at least Call of Duty would set someone back an additional 60¢ under the plan.

Money raised by the proposed tax would go toward "the treatment of mental health conditions associated with exposure to violent video games," according to the language of the bill. That's a bit odd, because while there is conflictingevidence on whether video games can lead to an increase in loosely defined "aggression" or violent feelings, we're not aware of any studies that link exposure to violent video games to the development of mental health conditions. Never mind that, though; "history shows there is a mental health component to these shootings," Franklin said, according to the AP.

Even if this Missouri bill were to somehow buck the trend and be signed into law, there's some question about whether or not such selective taxation would be altogether legal. The Supreme Court established full First Amendment protection for video games in 2011, and there's significant case law (PDF) suggesting that the government can't single out a specific type of speech for taxation absent a "compelling state interest."

All in all, we should be less worried about the actual threat posed by these kind of proposed taxes and more concerned with the fact that bills aimed at violent video games continue to be a favorite cudgel for some legislators to try to score cheap political points.

I didn't read the bill, but from the article it sounds like the bill doesn't restrict the sale of "violent" video games (sales by merchants would still be ESRB dependent). If Diane Franklin believes that violent video games influence mental health, how exactly does charging a tax to fund treatment for mental health conditions caused by violent video games accomplish anything as long as the games are still being sold?

I would not support in the slightest any law restricting video game sales based on content (the current rating system and self-policing by the industry work just fine) and I don't believe that violent video games trigger anything in people that they aren't already predisposed to, but if Diane Franklin believes in this premise, why chase the effects (treatment for violent video game-induced mental dysfunction) when you should go after the cause (violent video games)?

I understand the reasoning behind a proposition like this, but the wording makes it too cumbersome and broad. If they want to make this effective, it needs to specifically state that it only affects games rated T or higher for violence, not language. Unfortunately, this will also affect the newer Legend of Zelda games, as well as Metroid games starting with Metroid Prime...

She doesn't care if it passes, though she would look at it as a nice bonus if it does. Her masters, (NRA, Christian right, Koch Bros., you name it), want to deflect after New York's recent legislation.

This was designed to get press. Which it has. And designed to deflect the conversation from guns by changing the argument. Old, proven tactic, which, based on the comments here, is proving effective. People are now talking about taxes, constitutionality, free speech, scientific studies, etc. And NOT talking about simple gun control.

On a side note, she should have gone old school and gone after comic books too...

Thank you Republican representatives to make us safer. I have a closet full of guns to protect my family against those video gamers, but now that they are being taxed at 1%, I feel I don't need that many weapons any more!

...the fact that bills aimed at violent video games continue to be a favorite cudgel for some legislators to try to score cheap political points.

Cheap political points that turn into expensive burdens on the taxpayers of the state when these bills actually do pass and get struck down in litigation.

Nah, they don't even want the bills to pass, because they would have to pay tax when they buy the games for their kids. I bet if you looked closely you'd see that most of them are written specifically so that they don't have a snowball's chance of passing, but they can tell the moms and grandmas in their district that they tried.

Wait a second, aren't Republicans vehemently against increased taxation and government intervention?

Of course they are. (wink wink nudge nudge) That is why the biggest increases in taxes and government programs occur when Republicans are in the driver's seat....

Not quite. Remember the golden definition:

Under Republicans, Man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's the other way around.

Democrats are not some mythical silver bullet. The democratic party has passed just as many massive tax programs (such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US) and has always supported raising taxes on everyone to pay for such programs. Get a grip. Both parties suck.

Wait a second, aren't Republicans vehemently against increased taxation and government intervention?

Of course they are. (wink wink nudge nudge) That is why the biggest increases in taxes and government programs occur when Republicans are in the driver's seat....

Not quite. Remember the golden definition:

Under Republicans, Man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's the other way around.

Democrats are not some mythical silver bullet. The democratic party has passed just as many massive tax programs (such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US) and has always supported raising taxes on everyone to pay for such programs. Get a grip. Both parties suck.

Yeah, like that's ever going to happen. Nor do I want it to. But, I just have to ask something of all those people crying out that its the video games that are to blame. I'd like to know what movies and television programs they and their kids watch and how much time they spend watching them versus the time spent playing games.

how exactly does charging a tax to fund treatment for mental health conditions caused by violent video games accomplish anything as long as the games are still being sold?

The logic is sound, though it starts with what most people here would reflect as a faulty premise.

Starting premise:

Violent video games cause social costs to society by negatively impacting metal health, which could lead to violence towards others etc.

Following logic (negative externality):

The social costs are not included in the price of video games. Therefore, the price should be higher to reflect both the social and private cost. You do this by taxing. The tax money then can be used by society to defray the costs of metal health problems incurred by the public "caused" by video games.

I agree that this announcement has led away from the real issue: guns. I really enjoyed the Jon Stewart episode from the 8th of January. It was one of his better. Basically he states that all of our conversations about stopping "gun violence" never focuses on the first word of the quote.

Wait a second, aren't Republicans vehemently against increased taxation and government intervention?

Of course they are. (wink wink nudge nudge) That is why the biggest increases in taxes and government programs occur when Republicans are in the driver's seat....

Not quite. Remember the golden definition:

Under Republicans, Man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's the other way around.

Democrats are not some mythical silver bullet. The democratic party has passed just as many massive tax programs (such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US) and has always supported raising taxes on everyone to pay for such programs. Get a grip. Both parties suck.

Is not just about taxes. Everybody have to pay taxes, nobody wants to, but you have to. Social assistance and taxing is defined, protected and regulated by the constitution . Although you can disagree and discuss about the administration of revenue from taxes.

People in this country love to use their credit card, but they don't want to pay for what they spend with it. This country loves to use its credit card to initiate two wars, but at the say time wants to pay less taxes for it. People in this country wants bigger and better houses, but can't afford to pay for them, so they want to cut social programs and pay less taxes so the can afford the nice house.

Big business and rich people loves to benefit from the judicial system and the state to protect their properties and gain more profits, but are not willing to pay taxes to help maintain and reattribute the system that serves them.

Some people in this country wants to feel secure, while commuting to work , going to the beach or the park, but they don't want the government to look for terrorists and don't want to pay taxes for it.

Some people in this country don't have any hesitation to demonstrate their xenophobic,classists, selfish, lack of empathy, and racist opinions. But at the same time they don't want to pay more for the goods and services they buy.

In this country, some people don't care if some children are killed by guns as long they can have guns to compensate for their insecurities and please their power anxiety disorder . They don't want to pay for taxes neither for a better police department, fire department nor help people get out of poverty and negative social environments that produce more crime.

So you want to ban violent games and hollywood while at the same time trying to make it easier to get real guns? nice. That makes sense

The social costs are not included in the price of video games. Therefore, the price should be higher to reflect both the social and private cost. You do this by taxing. The tax money then can be used by society to defray the costs of metal health problems incurred by the public "caused" by video games.

Point taken. I understand the concept of taxing things that create social costs---we'll never eliminate the things that are bad for us and so we might as well find a way to deal with the problems those things create. However, my point was that the bill ignores the elephant in the room, which is illogical. If the root cause of the problem is identified as the sale of violent video games, then that is what the legislation should address.

As others have pointed out, the bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but it's reasonable to assume that a tax would have a better chance of succeeding than a law banning the sale of violent video games or criminalizing M-rated game sales to minors. Taxing things to pay for social costs is more realistic than eliminating the things that result in social costs. We tried that with Prohibition and it created even more problems.

So to protect the 2nd amendment they want to take away the 1st amendment. Honestly I think anyone who feels the need to own an assault weapon is mentally unstable.

Well, let me say that the definition of assault weapons as far as the assault weapon legislation(s) is concerned is extremely odd. Things that don't affect the workings and mechanisms of the gun can push an otherwise acceptable gun into assault weapon territory. For instance, the use of a barrel shroud (basically, a cover for the barrel that prevents someone grabbing a hot barrel from burning themselves) would mean that the gun would be classified as an assault weapon, despite the fact that it has no effect on the lethality of the rifle and is effectively just a safety precaution for the user of the gun. Other such features that would push guns into assault weapon territory include a lot of other cosmetic, safety, or convenience items that have a pretty tenuous effect at best on the lethality of the weapon.

My point is to say that the description of anyone that feels the need to own an assault weapon being mentally unstable is harsh, because what you are probably thinking of as an assault weapon isn't what is being discussed. As to what you are probably thinking constitutes an assault weapon (which would be better left to the term Assault Rifle), I would probably go so far as to agree that they should be extremely limited if not banned (though I, in general, find banning anything distasteful).

Dragging the video games in this, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly ludicrous. I'm not saying that video games are the best thing ever, and probably do overlap with mental health issues in the area of addiction. Links between video games and aggression or violence are extremely shaky, tenuous, and generally sourced by activists that are trying to create links there (either because of a grievance or hatred against video games, or because they are so sure they are right they don't want anything like facts to derail the truth as they see it).

All this is said as a person that enjoys and plays a great number of video games, and does not own an assault rifle, assault weapon, rifle, or even a pistol. I just don't believe in tinkering with rights, and especially with the basic rights that are written into the Constitution and its Amendments.

There is no bigger player of games than myself. I own over a thousand. But when is everyone going to wake up and stop saying there is no connection between viewing/simulating violence and committing acts of violence. Have a look at the Scientific American issue on the subject. Claiming that there is no connection is putting you in the same corner with people who say there is no connection between carbon emissions and global warming. One of those things that you know that just isn't so.

(such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US)

Seriously. I wish poor people weren't so keen on setting money on fire, and speculating on real estate.

Have you seen how much money is poured into lotto tickets in low income areas? I once watched two guys at a corner pharmacy have an argument. The moral of the two was trying to convince his friend to not spend his money on lotto tickets as it was the money that he'd been given by the welfare program to buy his kids food that week. The guy declared that his kids could deal with it, and promptly spent all of it on $5 scratch lotto, only to get nothing and then ask his buddy why he'd done it.

Hartford CT has over 22 Million dollars in known welfare fraud per month. 22 Million dollars of tax money that the government knows is being squandered, but due to the way welfare works, they can't do a thing about it. That's 22 MILLION PER MONTH in ONE city, and it's not the only city with that problem. Yearly? That's a quarter of a billion dollars BURNED every year of tax money because it goes to people who don't need it, but the rules and inspections are so lax they get it anyway. Now add in all the other places in the state of CT. I wouldn't be surprised if they easily cleared a billion dollars per year.

The recipients of this money? Well, one woman I talked with had a rental house, rental furniture, a full home theater system (complete with 60 inch tv and massive speakers), every game system, and worked a minimum wage part-time job that she complained about having to have. She constantly talked about how she was "owed things." She kept her receipts on her fridge since she had to give them to her welfare services officer to get her money. A quick check (and asking her) confirmed that she spent $150 per week on video games. Every week. She bought a new game for each one of her three children EVERY week with government cash that they collected.

Meanwhile, I grew up with hard-working parents who lived in a trailer working 80+ hour weeks until we could afford a house. Our first TV was used. All our VCR's were used. We worked for what we earned, and eventually, we worked our way up to a nice house with new furniture and a new TV. But we earned what we wanted.

The current welfare system has created a system of "I deserve this for nothing." I used to donate time at a food bank. Every day we gave out food to people who "needed it." Some did, and I had no qualms about helping those people. They were decent people struggling to make ends meet. But then there were the other half of the people that came through. The ones that talked on their iPhones while arguing that if we didn't give them extra they'd file a complaint and get the people who worked there fired. The same ones whose children had iPhones. All paid for by America's taxpayers.

One more story. A acquaintance of mine's sister was a welfare worker in the state of New York, and she did not like how it ran. One of her regulars was a woman who had initially come in because she couldn't make ends meet even with two jobs. She had a kid and it wasn't working. So she sat down with this lady, gave her a welfare stipend so she could quit the one job and helped her learn how to budget. Then one day the lady comes in and announces that thanks to her budgeting, she was able to quite her other job as well so she could just live off of the welfare cash. The worst part? There was nothing the sister could do to stop her. As far as I know, to this day she still is not working and drawing a nice fat welfare check from the government.

I have no problem with welfare for those who need it. But the system as we have it is giving the money to the people who don't need it. So yes, it is a colossal waste of American taxpayer money. Some may cry "think of the poor children!" to which I reply yes, think of the poor children who grew up in a government-paid for home, with a government paid-for TV, Xbox and cable, with government provided food, who never see their parents work for a dime. Think of how likely they are to actually go out and contribute to society. Why would they when they can have everything for nothing?

So, they don't set money on fire. Well, they almost do. At one point the city of Hartford declared that it would supply a new home to any welfare family whose home was lost in a fire. Guess what happened? The city suffered an outbreak of fires like it had never seen before. Those on welfare would get a home, get tired of it, and then the house would mysteriously suffer a fire accident! After less than a year, the city canceled the program, much to the anger of the welfare program users. Sure did a lot for the construction companies locally however. There was a huge mansion south of Hartford owned by the manager of a construction company. So I guess somebody profited.

TL;DR --Welfare is good for those who need it. Unfortunately, far to many do not need it, but use it anyway rather than work. Lost cash.

Wait a second, aren't Republicans vehemently against increased taxation and government intervention?

Of course they are. (wink wink nudge nudge) That is why the biggest increases in taxes and government programs occur when Republicans are in the driver's seat....

Not quite. Remember the golden definition:

Under Republicans, Man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's the other way around.

Democrats are not some mythical silver bullet. The democratic party has passed just as many massive tax programs (such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US) and has always supported raising taxes on everyone to pay for such programs. Get a grip. Both parties suck.

Politicians don't care about silly things like causation, science, etc. They care about MONEY. Have a pet project? Want to curry voter favor by appearing to respond to a problem? Well you need money for that.

Where can you get money? From people that your constituents don't sympathize with (e.g. teenagers, prisoners, foreigners, smokers, drinkers, fat people, etc). All you need to do is draw the most tenuous connection between something those people spend money on and then tax it to pay for what your constituents think they want.

I bet that no politician has ever been voted out of office for raising taxes on someone that wouldn't (or couldn't) have voted for them anyway.

If the root cause of the problem is identified as the sale of violent video games, then that is what the legislation should address.

As others have pointed out, the bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but it's reasonable to assume that a tax would have a better chance of succeeding than a law banning the sale of violent video games or criminalizing M-rated game sales to minors. Taxing things to pay for social costs is more realistic than eliminating the things that result in social costs. We tried that with Prohibition and it created even more problems.

It doesn't make sense to ban something just because there are social costs. Any private benefit from the production or consumption of that item would be lost. The world would be a worse place if the private losses were greater than the decrease in social cost even without considering what might happen from black markets. (Yes this would be hard to calculate). The point is you want the people producing or buying the product to take all costs into consideration when buying that product, so they do not over consume the product on society's dime.

You and I might different on the root of the problem. The issue here is not to force what you believe to be the best on someone else (banning), but to make sure they pay fully for their choices (taxing). I see the root of the problem as people not paying for their actions, not their actions themselves.

(such as social welfare, which accounts for a staggering amount of lost tax money in the US)

Seriously. I wish poor people weren't so keen on setting money on fire, and speculating on real estate.

Have you seen how much money is poured into lotto tickets in low income areas? I once watched two guys at a corner pharmacy have an argument. The moral of the two was trying to convince his friend to not spend his money on lotto tickets ...........................

I actually agree with you, but politics in America being what they are, our choices are:1) get rid of every safety net.2) don't do anything.

I will go with option 2 every time even if it means scam artists get away with millions.

Lawmakers create legislation because there is a poll stating a certain demographic (that will vote for them) want it to happen. No matter how absurd. This has nothing to do with his personal views or feelings and everything to do with his political votes.

It doesn't matter if the bill passes or not, as long as he can pander to the short attention span of his voters. He is making headlines right?

There is no bigger player of games than myself. I own over a thousand. But when is everyone going to wake up and stop saying there is no connection between viewing/simulating violence and committing acts of violence. Have a look at the Scientific American issue on the subject. Claiming that there is no connection is putting you in the same corner with people who say there is no connection between carbon emissions and global warming. One of those things that you know that just isn't so.

No connection? Probably not. What kind of connection is a different story.

For one, where is the causation at? Do video games cause violent people or do violent people play video games? Do video games cause different effects than other types of media (in other words, does playing the latest Call of Duty effect you differently than watching the latest Die Hard movie [other than the obvious detrimental effect to your intelligence you are showing by playing the latest Call of Duty])? Is there any study effectively showing the effects on brains, or is it just statistical data (and if so, who is gathering said data and what prejudice are they bringing to the table)?

While I know of a few studies that do indicate short-term and mild increase in aggression (note aggression ala competitiveness and not violence), as I recall it was shown to be a mild effect that was both mirrored in every other type of media and faded away after short periods (I don't recall the specifics, but a couple of hours seems to come to mind). I have not seen any studies showing a clear effect, particularly long-term, on behavior, much less to the extent of precipitating violence. While I don't go constantly hunting studies, I keep up with several technology and gaming sites that frequently mention such things, so I feel fairly confident that if there were any good studies (by an objective group) that I would know about them. I haven't read this Scientific American article (issue, paper, study?); can you link?

As mentioned, I have seen a lot of articles and studies referenced, and while there haven't been many good ones (on either side of the fence) the ones that I have seen like http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/12/d ... -argument/ hint towards a fairly harmless connection. That said, I agree that good studies need to be done by objective parties. That last bit is important, since everyone that I've seen that's thrown in their two cents, or study, or article already has dog in the fight. You either have the high-profile politicians that are looking for the knee-jerk reactions, the crazy nut-job video game haters like Jack Thompson, or those associated with the video game industry and its customers who automatically go on the defensive. Every single article or study (even the scientific ones) I've seen can be sourced back to one of those three groups and can hardly be called objective. And, as Penn & Teller (amongst others) have shown time and time again, statistics and polls can be used to say whatever you want them to say, if you are using them with the intention of making a point.

Is there an effect? Probably. Is it a meaningful effect? What little evidence there is says probably not, but there isn't enough there to say. Is whatever effect there is worth undermining free speech and expressions to eliminate? Regardless of what effects there are, I am fundamentally unable to accept censorship to even completely eliminate a societal problem.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.